As to the post you cite, you're correct that I didn't cite an exact quote, since it was the entire bulk of your first paragraph, but here is what you wrote:

The most striking aspect is that sober, fact-based, even-handed commentary like this about Israel automatically subjects one to widespread, profoundly ugly accusations of being "anti-Israel" and even "anti-Semitic,"

To which I responded:

Glenn, since your great "victimization theory" was first explained a few weeks ago, but has yet to be seen in actual effect, please provide examples where people attempt to "silence" Bill Moyers by calling him "anti-Semitic."

Since, of course, our elected officials could not possibly be acting according to actual belief and the great Zionist funding machine is secretly working to "silence" them by abusing charges of anti-Semitism, lets put the "Greenwald Zionist Persecution Complex" to the test.

Find me examples of the great chorus attempting to silence Mr. Moyers. Seriously. Other than a loony Charles Krauthammer type, you won't be able to find any.

Seems pretty direct to me.

To quote your nonsense some more:

to the point where not a single U.S. Senator and no House member other than a handful dare utter anything other than unquestioning support for Israeli actions, such that most members of the U.S. Congress are, literally, far more willing to question and oppose American military actions than Israel's military actions (the establishment discussion rules are virtually identical to those that prevailed in the pre-Iraq-war days, though even more rigidly enforced: one can question the efficacy of the Israeli attack from the perspective of Israeli interests, but may not question its morality, legality or justifiability):

This is what I mean by the "Glenn Greenwald Zionist Persecution Complex."

Your opponents are "fearful" and "scared" to speak the truth. They "may not" question, something (unstated) is preventing them from speaking out.

You draw the false equivalency of the Iraq War once again, noting that "far more willing to question and oppose American military actions than Israel's military actions."

"Far more willing" -- classic propaganda that inserts clear subtextual meaning of Glenn Greenwald knowing the thought process of those he speaks of. Willing/Unwilling. Not "believes/doesn't-believe."

Our Congress is fearful and "unwilling" to state what is clearly true, since Glenn Greenwald believes it to be true.

Left are the Occam's Razor explanations buried in all this propganda linguistic slippage:

1. They are more willing to speak out on Iraq because Iraq is a situation that has more to criticize

2. They are more willing to speak out on Iraq because it is American military in Iraq and Israeli military in Gaza, and they are American elected officials.

But nope. In Glenn Greenwald's America, forces unseen "prevent" our officials from speaking out on a foreign power's response to rocket fire. They "cower meekly," unlike the bold and brave Glenn Greenwald, who fears not such hidden financing forces.

You are O'Reilly, Glenn. Congrats.

The double standard that I call Glenn out on is exactly that. It's the same double standard the Neo-Cons use all the time.

Whenever a democratic candidate does something on principle that Glenn agrees with -- say opposing FISA -- Glenn notes how our cynical traditional media immediately tars that official as arguing that way to help their presidential prospects, or "win favor" with a constituency.

Glenn rightly calls out the villagers in Washington for their cynical mentality. Everything is "politics" to Washington punditry. Never considered is real world governance. Glenn asks why it's never possible that an elected official acts on principle rather than for craven personal gain.

But when a politician acts against the way Glenn Greenwald wants them to, their motives are immediately suspect for corruption and fear of reprisal and duplicity.

In short, Glenn becomes a Villager when it suits him, and criticizes them when it does not.

Yes.

I've been reading GG for years. He rightly excoriated the Villagers for critiquing everything Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and any of the other primary candidates did as done so to help their presidential chances. Glenn wrote a number of excellent diaries on Russ Feingold's FISA opposition, which was attributed by the Cocktail Weenie crew as done to "launch his presidential campaign." Glenn asked why

I suppose I'm now going to demanded to go find Glenn's old blogposts. But I just don't have the time.

Suffice to say, my point is simple, and easily graspable: Why does Glenn rule out that American government officials nearly unanimously back Israel because they believe Israel has the right to respond militarily to Hamas?

Why does it have to be that they're "unwilling" and "fearful" to speak out?

As soon as Glenn frames it this way, he's automatically projected his own beliefs and motivations onto those he critiques. A common rhetorical trick to be sure (seen all the time from the Neo-Cons), but that doesn't make it any more insidious.

Here's my opinion: American government officials refuse to criticize Israel because to do so is to hand the global Israel-hating fanatics a bludgeon.

That doesn't mean they don't share Glenn's concern for Israel's military response. It just means they're not willing to issue on-the-record condemnations, because unlike Glenn, who is in complete denial about global anti-Israel bias, our Washington officials know what will be done with their statements.

Believe it or not, I think Israel's response is way out of whack with what should have been expected. But I don't know all the facts yet. I don't know if those civilian homes were covering tunnels for weapons smuggling. I don't know, because not all the facts are in.

All I know is Hamas is a terrorist group that's been shelling Israel for years, and Israel has a right to respond. The rest needs to be uncovered. Israel needs to let journalists in immediately, and should be criticized for not doing so.